Federal judge strikes down Virginia ban on same-sex marriage

posted at 8:06 am on February 14, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Not exactly a surprise, but merely a continuation of a trend. A federal district court in Virginia struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the latest in a recent string of defeats for states wishing to define marriage:

A federal judge in Norfolk struck down as unconstitutional Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday night, saying the country has “arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen issued a sweeping 41-page opinion that mentioned at length Virginia’s past in denying interracial marriage and quoted Abraham Lincoln. She struck the constitutional amendment Virginia voters approved in 2006 that both bans same-sex marriage and forbids recognition of such unions performed elsewhere. …

“Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” Wright Allen wrote. “Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.”

If you think that’s a strange application of the word sacred, it fits with the sloppy and turgid prose in the rest of the opinion. Gabriel Malor highlighted the opening paragraph, and it should be an immediate contender for the annual Edward Bulwer-Lytton writing contest. All that was missing from this string of clichés was the dark and stormy night:

Not long after that, Gabriel also noticed that the judge references the Constitution’s clear language that “all men are created equal.” The only problem? That language doesn’t come from the Constitution — it’s in the Declaration of Independence. (He also notes that this model of judicial writing got a unanimous confirmation from the US Senate.)

Beyond the bad writing style, though, the judge seems to at least be in the consensus on the federal bench these days. This follows on the heels of another decision in Kentucky with somewhat more limited application, but using the same reasoning of the 14th Amendment and Lawrence v Texas, which I predicted nearly ten years ago would be used to overturn state definitions of marriage. So did Antonin Scalia in Lawrence and Windsor dissents, and whom Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern ridiculed earlier this week for, er, getting it right:

By now, an opinion like this is fairly predictable. It comes as a pleasant surprise, then, to see Heyburn channeling his inner Judge Robert Shelby and sticking his thumb directly in Scalia’s eye. In Scalia’s Windsor dissent, the justice decried overly broad, “deliberately transposable passages” expounding the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s unconstitutionality. “How easy it is,” Scalia snorted, “indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion [as the court in Windsor] with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.” Then he illustrated for the world just how easy it would be to apply Windsor’s logic to state-level gay marriage bans, indignantly substituting a few key words:

DOMA This state law tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise validmarriages relationships are unworthy of federal state recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage relationship. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence

Scalia performs this haughty exercise three times in his dissent, so intent is he to declare to the world I told you so. It’s meant to be a scornful joke—but Heyburn takes it as an invitation to do the same in applying Windsor’s holding to his own state’s law.

Actually, it wasn’t meant to be a “scornful joke,” but a warning of what was to come. And Scalia predicted it very accurately, despite an avalanche of criticism at those times for his hyperbole and supposed scare-mongering.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9

Yeah, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from abridging the due process and equal protection rights of the people.

alchemist19

Unless it’s polygamy. Then abridge away.

You need to read up on your history if you don’t think it was argued that allowing mixed race couples changed the structure of what marriage is.

alchemist19

You need to read up on your history if you think the SC “seeing through” an argument makes it right. See Plessy vs Ferguson. See Kelo. See Obamacare.

I have yet to see a SSM argument or ruling that didn’t also apply to polygamy. Or even the mother/daughter situation mentioned above.

gwelf

Yeah, but the typical SSM supporting hypocrite will say that it doesn’t because they don’t like those forms of marriage, lol. It’s why I can’t take them serious on this issue.

xblade on February 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Meanwhile….in Kansas…

“There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.

Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.

Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.

The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?

Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”

Meanwhile, in Kansas, the state House of Representatives approved a bill intended to impede the March Toward Utopia in the name of “religious liberty,” inspiring an eruption of hyperbole about “vicious discrimination” and “anti-gay segregation….”

http://theothermccain.com

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 1:56 PM

There are no societal ills of polygamy which justify its banning while straight and gay couples get their needs fulfilled.

Who is one person to tell another that their choice to have two wives or be one of multiple wives is wrong, why all this marginalization of people?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 1:56 PM

I thought a couple weeks ago you and I went through the demonstrated societal ills that are associated with polygamy that provide a rational basis for its prohibition.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 1:45 PM

That’s absurd. A wealthy man gives harbor and security to several women who would otherwise be on welfare or on the edge of poverty? Or vice-versa?

John the Libertarian on February 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Exactly.

You can’t find one polygamist marriage that’s “beneficial” to society in all the same ways a “gay marriage” can be?

Because if you can then you’re denying a whole class of people a “right” and treating them “unequally” based off of stereotypes and “bigoted” research.

gwelf on February 14, 2014 at 1:57 PM

It is not legal for anyone to do this.
It’s not legal for anyone to marry a child.
It’s not legal for anyone to marry a dog, or a car, or philosophical quote.
Your argument and others straining here with the same has zero merit.
verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Wait… Are you not advocating creating new laws based on “equality”?

anuts on February 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM

There are no societal ills of polygamy which justify its banning while straight and gay couples get their needs fulfilled.

Who is one person to tell another that their choice to have two wives or be one of multiple wives is wrong, why all this marginalization of people?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Yeah…and how come they aren’t including certain animal lovers who happen to engage in forbidden love with consenting animals?

And who’s to say the animals aren’t consenting…anyhow?

Bestiality inclined folks are definitely being marginalized.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Human-Animal Free Love…Stop The Oppression!

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Come up with ONE good reason why polygamy is worth banning but that doesn’t infringe on the rights of the polygamist.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM

“Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced legislation today that would allow states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage.
Breitbart reported:

On Thursday, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which allows states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage and protects the states from having the federal government encroach on that territory.

Thirty-three states define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Cruz stated:
I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for [their] residents.

Lee echoed:
How a state should define marriage should be left up to the citizens of each state. It is clear the Obama administration finds the principles of federalism inconvenient in its effort to force states to redefine the institution of marriage. The State Marriage Defense Act provides an important protection for states, respecting the right to choose for themselves how each will treat the institution of marriage under the law…”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/senators-ted-cruz-and-mike-lee-introduce-state-marriage-defense-act/

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Come up with ONE good reason why polygamy is worth banning but that doesn’t infringe on the rights of the polygamist.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:07 PM

They can’t except to sputter something about right-wingers and slippery slope arguments are all stoopid or something…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Bestiality inclined folks are definitely being marginalized.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM

And you just know the NAMBLA folks are going to start attacking the 18-year-old threshold.

John the Libertarian on February 14, 2014 at 2:10 PM

They can’t except to sputter something about right-wingers and slippery slope arguments are all stoopid or something…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Someone here, either verbalicious or alchemist, opined a while back that having two moms and one dad would affect a child’s psyche and make them the target of bullies. When I asked about having two dads in that situation I was basically told it wasn’t analogous.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Bestiality inclined folks are definitely being marginalized.

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM

And you just know the NAMBLA folks are going to start attacking the 18-year-old threshold.

John the Libertarian on February 14, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Well yeah…cause if a boy or girl knows they’re Gay by the age of say 13…then obviously he or she should be encouraged in their self discovery and not bullied or oppressed and of course they need mentoring etc…

*blech*

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Virginia tried the racial version of this specious argument in 1967 when they were defending their ban on interracial marriage. SCOTUS saw straight through it.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Surprised no one has brought this up, yet:

You cannot control your race when you are born… that is why it is illegal to discriminate based upon that.

In order for the same precedence to follow in this SSM case, isn’t the burden of proof on SSM supporters to prove you cannot control your [sexual orientation] when you are born?

Without these being quantitatively proven, that argument is not based on the same premises.

If that proof is not there, we are making laws based on preferences, ie the preference to be gay. In Virginia, the preference of the majority of voters was to not allow SSM. Since preference is what laws are being based on, (unless proven otherwise), the preference of the majority outweighs the preference of the minority.

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM

If that’s what you think then you’re clearly not paying attention and I can’t help you.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Stop talking to yourself. That’s not a 14th Amendment protected class…yet.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Someone here, either verbalicious or alchemist, opined a while back that having two moms and one dad would affect a child’s psyche and make them the target of bullies. When I asked about having two dads in that situation I was basically told it wasn’t analogous.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Moonbat solipcism…

workingclass artist on February 14, 2014 at 2:19 PM

There are no societal ills of polygamy which justify its banning while straight and gay couples get their needs fulfilled.

Who is one person to tell another that their choice to have two wives or be one of multiple wives is wrong, why all this marginalization of people?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Exactly. If I can have 1 wife and 3 kids, why can’t I have 2 wives and 2 kids? Same # of dependents on my tax return as far as the government is concerned.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I have yet to see a SSM argument or ruling that didn’t also apply to polygamy. Or even the mother/daughter situation mentioned above.

gwelf

Yeah, but the typical SSM supporting hypocrite will say that it doesn’t because they don’t like those forms of marriage, lol. It’s why I can’t take them serious on this issue.

xblade on February 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM

gwelf –
I’d say you refuse to see the argument.
You think you have some sort of gotcha point with all these polygamy and incest scenarios. It’s just deflection.

xblade –
And exactly which SSM supporters do you take seriously…on this issue?
Exactly.

I think it’s telling how bizarre the arguments are getting from those who oppose SSM. You don’t have a clear or sensical case to make – especially if you consider yourself a Libertarian…and increasingly if you consider yourself a Conservative.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

“Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced legislation today that would allow states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage.
Breitbart reported:

On Thursday, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which allows states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage and protects the states from having the federal government encroach on that territory.”

–Gee, wasn’t it just 15 years ago that the GOP (who introduced the bill in both House and Senate) demanded that the federal government set its own standard for marriage (as well as not requiring states to recognize gay marriages which were legal in other states)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

jim56 on February 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM

41 pages? Did it include diagrams and recipes?

This activist judicial whore must be more motormouth than Slick Clintoon.

Poor Lincoln. To be quoted by such a robed sleazeball….

viking01 on February 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM

think it’s telling how bizarre the arguments are getting from those who oppose SSM. You don’t have a clear or sensical case to make – especially if you consider yourself a Libertarian…and increasingly if you consider yourself a Conservative.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

I made the case. You don’t get rid of state involvement in something by expanding it.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM

The Kansas bill is screwed up. Here’s what it says:

“No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

“Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”

So, if you had sincerely held religious beliefs that hetrosexual marriage was wrong if homosexual marriage wasn’t also permitted, you could also decline to help hetrosexual couples.

jim56 on February 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Exactly. If I can have 1 wife and 3 kids, why can’t I have 2 wives and 2 kids? Same # of dependents on my tax return as far as the government is concerned.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Yes, and people are born this way, they can’t just change themselves to fit society’s perfect image.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM

People who support same-sex marriage don’t have to prove that polygamy should be banned. We are not standing in the way of polygamists. If a polygamist movement emerges, it is beholden upon that movement to articulate it’s own rationale for state recognition. Everyone who hears their arguments will have the freedom to accept or reject them, just as they have with same-sex marriage. I don’t understand why alchemist even plays the polygamist strawman game. It is an entirely different issue than same-sex marriage. And people who support same-sex marriage should not oppose polygamy. That doesn’t mean they have to be part of the polygamist movement or devote resources to a polygamist movement, but there’s absolutely no reason why they should oppose a polygamist movement.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM

You think you have some sort of gotcha point with all these polygamy and incest scenarios.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

All you need is one good rational reason to deny a polygamist their right.

Why should you care who they screw, they’re rational adults and have made their own decision on their own life plan. I remember when “CHOICE!” and “Get your government hands off my body!” and “Stay out of my bedroom!” were popular with the lefties.

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM

I thought SSM meant Socialist Sado-Masochism?

Close enough.

viking01 on February 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Do YOU have a clear or sensical case to make against marriage equality?

blink on February 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM

I can make a clear and sensical case for not undoing the legal concept of capacity, which would be necessary to allow children to marry or for human-animal marriage. However, there are no clear and sensical arguments for preventing incestuous marriage, same-sex marriage or polygamist marriage.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM

So, if you had sincerely held religious beliefs that hetrosexual marriage was wrong if homosexual marriage wasn’t also permitted, you could also decline to help hetrosexual couples.

jim56 on February 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Freedom of association.

Good job Kansas.

nobar on February 14, 2014 at 2:34 PM

I made the case. You don’t get rid of state involvement in something by expanding it.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Yes, your advocacy for no govt involvement is consistent with Libertarian principles.
But you don’t have a good argument to support the discrimination if the government is involved.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM

You don’t have a clear or sensical case to make – especially if you consider yourself a Libertarian…
 
verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

 
C’mon, now. Even the real verbaluce wouldn’t write something that wrong.

rogerb on February 14, 2014 at 2:40 PM

So, if you had sincerely held religious beliefs that hetrosexual marriage was wrong if homosexual marriage wasn’t also permitted, you could also decline to help hetrosexual couples.

jim56 on February 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM

So what?

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:41 PM

I think it’s telling how bizarre the arguments are getting from those who oppose SSM. You don’t have a clear or sensical case to make – especially if you consider yourself a Libertarian…and increasingly if you consider yourself a Conservative.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

.
Here we go again . . . . .

The abnormality of homosexuality is “self-evident” beyond any shadow of doubt.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Yes, your advocacy for no govt involvement is consistent with Libertarian principles.
But you don’t have a good argument to support the discrimination if the government is involved.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Because I don’t think state sanctioned marriage is a right or a license wouldn’t be required.

I think you have the right to partner up with whomever you want, and sign a private contract.

The state’s whole purpose is TO GUARANTEE rights. Rights that would still be a RIGHT WITHOUT THE STATE. Tell me how marriage licenses would still be a right without the state?

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:42 PM

You can’t logically have it both ways. If gay marriage is in polygamy is eventually in. You want cogent analysis on this point? Read some of Eugene Volokh’s writings on it. But back to the 14th Amendment and unequal treatment. How are gays treated unequally under the law?

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Why would I bother with Volokh? No less an authority than Rick Santorum was saying before the Lawrence decision that once the sodomy laws were gone we were headed straight for polygamy (no mention of gay marriage either). May I suggest instead of me reading Volokh it should be some of my fellow conservatives who need to read “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’” to understand why the slippery slope doesn’t move me. Well because of that and because the slope argument doesn’t make sense.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:43 PM

the legal concept of capacity

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM

But that is as arbitrary as anything else. Not too long ago, 12-year-old girls were being married off. Capacity depends upon maturity, and that is extremely arbitrary.

John the Libertarian on February 14, 2014 at 2:43 PM

gwelf –
I’d say you refuse to see the argument.
You think you have some sort of gotcha point with all these polygamy and incest scenarios. It’s just deflection.

xblade –
And exactly which SSM supporters do you take seriously…on this issue?
Exactly.

I think it’s telling how bizarre the arguments are getting from those who oppose SSM. You don’t have a clear or sensical case to make – especially if you consider yourself a Libertarian…and increasingly if you consider yourself a Conservative.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

I’m refusing to see the argument?
No – you are. I know this because you won’t address the specific issues brought to you. You just dismiss them. Like you did here. Again.

gwelf on February 14, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Whatever one might think about same sex marriage, Ed’s article was right on point. The Virginia judge’s decision is flawed. The Kentucky judge who used the 14th Amendment to overrule Kentucky’s constitutional ban on same sex marriage has merit. And, eventually the Supreme Court is going to have decide if it going to rule on this issue. However, as some wiser heads have said the Supreme Court may wait for years before making any ruling in favor of SSM. They got in hot water back in 1973 when the court ruled in favor of a Federal law approving abortion, trumping state laws in the case of abortion. In that case, millions of innocent babies have been murdered in their mother’s wombs for no other reason than the pregnancy was inconvenient by the mother.

Today women have complete control over whether they will have a child. Even if the woman is married, the father has no standing in her decision to have a child. If the woman wants to have a child all she has to say to the man is that she is on some type of birth control drug, using an IUD, has her tubes tied, etc……………. if the woman has a child the man is the hook for child support.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Why would I bother with Volokh? No less an authority than Rick Santorum was saying before the Lawrence decision that once the sodomy laws were gone we were headed straight for polygamy (no mention of gay marriage either). May I suggest instead of me reading Volokh it should be some of my fellow conservatives who need to read “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’” to understand why the slippery slope doesn’t move me. Well because of that and because the slope argument doesn’t make sense.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:43 PM

You can la-la-la all you want, but it doesn’t mean the slippery slope isn’t here.

California just opened the door for polygamy with its law that a child can have THREE OR MORE parents. The legal argument is that wouldn’t the state’s interest be that those parents all lived in the same household with state sanctioning.

You cannot be that obtuse or ignorant about how these legal arguments work.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:46 PM

That’s absurd. A wealthy man gives harbor and security to several women who would otherwise be on welfare or on the edge of poverty? Or vice-versa?

John the Libertarian on February 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I’m a libertarian as well but my opinion on polygamy has hardened over the last few months. If we’re going to have the state sanction marriages (and it’s naïve to think we will get to the point that we won’t) then there is cause to regulate it, and polygamy’s historical track record is pretty darn awful.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Everyone who hears their arguments will have the freedom to accept or reject them

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM

What would YOU call someone who rejected the idea of gay marriage?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I think it’s telling how bizarre the arguments are getting from those who oppose SSM. You don’t have a clear or sensical case to make –

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Really? So to be in favor of traditional marriage is “bizarre” and “nonsensical”? 25 years ago, only 12% of Americans supported same sex marriage. That means even most liberals thought SSM was bizarre back then. Not one nation on Earth, including those in ultra liberal Scandinavia, recognized same sex marriage in 1988. And from 1988 back through all of human history, no culture on the planet ever legally recognized “same sex marriage”, even cultures that were very tolerant of homoeroticism like ancient Greece. So based on your reasoning, virtually all of humanity, including most progressives, were engaged in “bizarre” and “nonsensical” thinking until around the day before yesterday.

frank63 on February 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Yes. BUT THERE IS NO GAY “MARRIAGE” BAN. You’re lying and distorting the English language to try and arrive at your favored position – by any means necessary. It is extremely dishonest. But, effective propaganda.

besser tot als rot on February 14, 2014 at 1:53 PM

There is no ban on homosexual couples being granted access to the legal status of marriage?

Admittedly I’m using some colloquialisms for the sake of brevity when I discuss the issue because the issue that’s being discussed is pretty plain. If you want to split hairs on meanings and drive the discussion into a topic not related to the news of the day then say so.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I don’t understand why alchemist even plays the polygamist strawman game. It is an entirely different issue than same-sex marriage.

Not really. Both institutions share the same basis as a demand for forcing others in society to recognize their ‘marriage;’ intense emotional feelings/bond between the individuals involved.

Ricard on February 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I’m a libertarian as well but my opinion on polygamy has hardened over the last few months. If we’re going to have the state sanction marriages (and it’s naïve to think we will get to the point that we won’t) then there is cause to regulate it, and polygamy’s historical track record is pretty darn awful.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:47 PM

That is a moral opinion, so like you all say to religious peophe- it is irrelevant and has no purpose in the public square or laws.

Furthermore, you are saying in order for polygamist to obtain equal rights- they have to PROVE that their track record isn’t awful. Tell me, why don’t you hold gay marriage supporters to this standard?

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Why would I bother with Volokh? No less an authority than Rick Santorum was saying before the Lawrence decision that once the sodomy laws were gone we were headed straight for polygamy (no mention of gay marriage either). May I suggest instead of me reading Volokh it should be some of my fellow conservatives who need to read “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’” to understand why the slippery slope doesn’t move me. Well because of that and because the slope argument doesn’t make sense.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:43 PM

You’re a juvenile thinker. You can’t defend or refute anything. If you fail to see because of your intellectual deficiencies I really have nothing else to say.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 2:50 PM

The Kentucky judge who used the 14th Amendment to overrule Kentucky’s constitutional ban on same sex marriage has merit.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 2:45 PM

. . . . . and again . . . . .

The abnormality of homosexuality is “self-evident” beyond any shadow of doubt.

listens2glenn on February 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Yes, your advocacy for no govt involvement is consistent with Libertarian principles.
But you don’t have a good argument to support the discrimination if the government is involved.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 2:37 PM

But you yourself support discrimination.

It’s why you won’t go into a discussion about polygamy, incest, or the daughter/mother case above.

My position is that no rights are at stake therefor the state can discriminate who gets states benefits. The state does this everywhere: the tax code, regulatory regime, the entitlement state, etc.
The state constantly discriminates between citizens.

gwelf on February 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM

If we’re going to have the state sanction marriages (and it’s naïve to think we will get to the point that we won’t) then there is cause to regulate it, and polygamy’s historical track record is pretty darn awful.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:47 PM

So if we carefully and diligently regulate it then you’re cool with polygamy?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I think it’s gonna be just great. Think of it…more marriages of convenience only now you don’t have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. Now you’ll be able to marry your bff or your college roommate so you can get those governments benefits. YeeHaw power to the people!!! /

BeachBum on February 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM

There is no ban on homosexual couples being granted access to the legal status of marriage?

Admittedly I’m using some colloquialisms for the sake of brevity when I discuss the issue because the issue that’s being discussed is pretty plain. If you want to split hairs on meanings and drive the discussion into a topic not related to the news of the day then say so.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Do you know what the difference between a ban and a restriction is?

A ban means that Joe/Steve get married in Washington D.C. and move to Virginia they get arrested.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM

People who support same-sex marriage don’t have to prove that polygamy should be banned. We are not standing in the way of polygamists. If a polygamist movement emerges, it is beholden upon that movement to articulate it’s own rationale for state recognition. Everyone who hears their arguments will have the freedom to accept or reject them, just as they have with same-sex marriage. I don’t understand why alchemist even plays the polygamist strawman game. It is an entirely different issue than same-sex marriage. And people who support same-sex marriage should not oppose polygamy. That doesn’t mean they have to be part of the polygamist movement or devote resources to a polygamist movement, but there’s absolutely no reason why they should oppose a polygamist movement.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Ha ha ha.

But it’s really about “equality” and “civil rights”.

What a joke.

gwelf on February 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM

hat would YOU call someone who rejected the idea of gay marriage?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I wouldn’t “call” them anything. But I’d happily have a conversation with them in order to understand why they don’t. Many gay leftists reject gay marriage.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:56 PM

What would YOU call someone who rejected the idea of gay marriage?
 
Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM

 
Your question doesn’t make any sensicals, racist. Homophobe. Whatever.

rogerb on February 14, 2014 at 2:57 PM

But it’s really about “equality” and “civil rights”.

What a joke.

gwelf on February 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM

You know what’s funny. I almost never argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of “equality” or even of “civil rights.” Frankly, i don’t really argue for same-sex marriage. I take great schadenfreude in seeing anti-gay people’s head’s explode, but I am actually ambivalent about gay marriage. I am part of the gay community who finds marriage itself an oppressive institution, one that is bound up in some really ugly histories.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

I wouldn’t “call” them anything. But I’d happily have a conversation with them in order to understand why they don’t. Many gay leftists reject gay marriage.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:56 PM

What would you call someone who rejected biracial marriage?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

The problem here is that there’s an attempt to hijack the meaning of marriage. If all that was desired were the legal privileges (not rights) afforded to married (man & woman) couples, then why weren’t civil unions good enough? Why isn’t power of attorney good enough? Why the need to morally equivocate that which is not morally equal? Because it is something that is also regulated/licensed by government?

If two people want to live together, love together, etc. that’s awesome. People being happy together is awesome. And if they want to have the same capacity to see each other, without restrictions, in the hospital, make legal decisions for one another and file their taxes jointly… Hey… Civil Union all the way. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. Marriage is, and always should be, one man and one woman. The rest is just the civil/legal part that can be given and taken away by government, hence a privilege and not a right.

SteelmanC on February 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

You can la-la-la all you want, but it doesn’t mean the slippery slope isn’t here.

So why is it this time that the slope is here for sure when all the other times we heard about it it never showed?

California just opened the door for polygamy with its law that a child can have THREE OR MORE parents. The legal argument is that wouldn’t the state’s interest be that those parents all lived in the same household with state sanctioning.

The California law in question stemmed from a court case where a man donated sperm to a lesbian couple and when circumstances arose where the couple was temporarily unable to care for the child the biological father offered to step in but had no legal right. What they did was a means to ensure extra protection for a child and, in this case, keep a kid out of the foster care system and allow them to live with a person who already cared for them. This is a bad thing?

And note it took a separate law to do it! Having gay marriage in California was not enough to create a legal structure for a tree parent situation! Slippery slope, my aching white backside.

You cannot be that obtuse or ignorant about how these legal arguments work.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 2:46 PM

I’ve been hearing it from people who have been telling me that legalizing sodomy gay marriage starts us down a slippery slope. If I’m the one whose turn it is to finally be obtuse and ignorant at least I’ve got a lot of company!

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Slippery slope, my aching white backside.’
 
alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM

 
Phrasing.

rogerb on February 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM

You know what’s funny. I almost never argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of “equality” or even of “civil rights.” Frankly, i don’t really argue for same-sex marriage. I take great schadenfreude in seeing anti-gay people’s head’s explode, but I am actually ambivalent about gay marriage. I am part of the gay community who finds marriage itself an oppressive institution, one that is bound up in some really ugly histories.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Yeah, speaking of history and your knowledge of it…

Here’s a simple question for you. Which of the founding fathers did not subscribe to the communitarian ethos Calhoun deploys to rationalize slavery? *sets sundial*

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:30 AM

None. They weren’t nascent Commies like John C. Calhoun, and full blown Commies like you. Don’t you think you need to provide some proof for such a ridiculous smear there Mr. Calhoun? You’re a history perfesser, right?

NotCoach on August 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Oh dear God….hold on, give me 10 minutes.

libfreeordie on August 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM

I wonder if God takes pity on imbeciles.

NotCoach on February 14, 2014 at 3:03 PM

The California law in question stemmed from a court case where a man donated sperm to a lesbian couple and when circumstances arose where the couple was temporarily unable to care for the child the biological father offered to step in but had no legal right. What they did was a means to ensure extra protection for a child and, in this case, keep a kid out of the foster care system and allow them to live with a person who already cared for them. This is a bad thing?

And note it took a separate law to do it! Having gay marriage in California was not enough to create a legal structure for a tree parent situation! Slippery slope, my aching white backside

No, the man did not “donate’ sperm. He had an affair with a “lesbian” and they the state of California terminated his rights without due process by making the lesbian’s “spouse” the automatic legal parent. They violated the father’s right from jump, and instead of fixing that issue; they fudged it so that lesbians and gays wouldn’t feel abnormal because they both can’t BIOLOGICALLY be a child’s parent.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 3:06 PM

The rest is just the civil/legal part that can be given and taken away by government, hence a privilege and not a right.

SteelmanC on February 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM

DING! DING! DING!
Thread winner!

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM

I’m thinkin’ about jumping in.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM

careful now…the Water’s a little shallow on your end..

ToddPA on February 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Please make sure to jump head-first.

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Slippery slope, my aching white backside.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM

I’m thinkin’ about jumping in.

verbaluce on February 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM

o.0

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 3:11 PM

I’ve now found 41 scientific studies showing the societal ills of homosexuality and hence gay marriage.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 1:48 PM

I thought it was 69?

See what I did there?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM

What they did was a means to ensure extra protection for a child and, in this case, keep a kid out of the foster care system and allow them to live with a person who already cared for them. This is a bad thing?

Wouldn’t have been an issue had the “gay marriage” of the lesbian not UNLAWFULLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY terminated the rights of the LEGAL father.

And note it took a separate law to do it! Having gay marriage in California was not enough to create a legal structure for a tree parent situation! Slippery slope, my aching white backside

It was a separate law that sprung up from gay marriage. Instead of telling lesbian and gay couples that you cannot have your spouse automatically be declared legal guardian WITHOUT terminating the rights of the bio parent- They made a law so kids have to be shuttled to THREE or more homes. It wasn’t in the best interest of the kids, it was to satisfy the narcissism of the gay movement.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Alchemist, now that you’re back, care to respond?

Virginia tried the racial version of this specious argument in 1967 when they were defending their ban on interracial marriage. SCOTUS saw straight through it.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Surprised no one has brought this up, yet:

You cannot control your race when you are born… that is why it is illegal to discriminate based upon that.

In order for the same precedence to follow in this SSM case, isn’t the burden of proof on SSM supporters to prove you cannot control your [sexual orientation] when you are born?

Without these being quantitatively proven, that argument is not based on the same premises.

If that proof is not there, we are making laws based on preferences, ie the preference to be gay. In Virginia, the preference of the majority of voters was to not allow SSM. Since preference is what laws are being based on, (unless proven otherwise), the preference of the majority outweighs the preference of the minority.

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Has the IRS Legalized Polygamy?

“I extend that analysis by explaining how ambiguity in the IRS’s guidance may also have unintentionally opened the door to recognizing plural marriage for federal tax purposes.”

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/02/infanti-.html

Viator on February 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Surprised no one has brought this up, yet:

You cannot control your race when you are born… that is why it is illegal to discriminate based upon that.

In order for the same precedence to follow in this SSM case, isn’t the burden of proof on SSM supporters to prove you cannot control your [sexual orientation] when you are born?

Without these being quantitatively proven, that argument is not based on the same premises.

If that proof is not there, we are making laws based on preferences, ie the preference to be gay. In Virginia, the preference of the majority of voters was to not allow SSM. Since preference is what laws are being based on, (unless proven otherwise), the preference of the majority outweighs the preference of the minority.

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM

You think that’s not been tried before? Are you new to this discussion?

We’re quantitating sexual orientation now? Whee, this is gonna be fun!

So the standard you want is that you have to be born with it for something to be protected? Okay, let’s examine if this is the way the law is applied. It’s true that we’re all born with our race, it’s immutable and it’s outwardly obvious so that’s why we not only protect it, we protect it with strict scrutiny when it comes to equal protection claims. Let’s imagine for a minute that the premise is true that sexual orientation is a purely a matter of choice and not anything immutable. It’s a preference (hypothetically) and should be treated as such. Are preferences not entitled to any protection at all? Why yes, yes they are. Take religion for example. Religion is purely a choice, and it’s choice anyone can change at will. It’s a pure preference, plain and simple. Yet despite the fact it’s a choice it’s given equal protection status equivalent of race and national origin. It appears that in this country even things that are personal choices can be entitled to the highest level of scrutiny when it comes to equal protection claims. So even if we accept the premise that sexual orientation is a choice that does not disqualify it from equal protection status. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Wouldn’t have been an issue had the “gay marriage” of the lesbian not UNLAWFULLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY terminated the rights of the LEGAL father.

It was a separate law that sprung up from gay marriage. Instead of telling lesbian and gay couples that you cannot have your spouse automatically be declared legal guardian WITHOUT terminating the rights of the bio parent- They made a law so kids have to be shuttled to THREE or more homes. It wasn’t in the best interest of the kids, it was to satisfy the narcissism of the gay movement.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 3:13 PM

If a sperm donor is used, be it by a single woman or married couple (heterosexual of homosexual), that sperm donor has generally not enjoyed parental rights. This was the case here. By your standard every sperm donor has had their rights unlawfully and unconstitutionally terminated. What the California law did was grant new rights to a donor that wanted them. I don’t think that’s a wholly bad thing if all involved parties are fine with the arrangement. Would you have preferred this child be placed in foster care than be cared for by their biological father who obviously had an interest.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Phrasing.

rogerb on February 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM

OK, that was funny. :)

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Okay. So one on side, we’ve cleared up that this issue is not analogous to racial discrimination.

I disagree with this: “it’s given equal protection status equivalent of race and national origin.” Where that the case, I should qualify under some minority status (as a Mormon), right? We comprise of what, 2% of the world population?

I’m not well versed enough in law well enough to go much further, but it seemed that earlier you were equating SSM to mixed race marriage. I don’t see how they can be equated, so you can’t rely on that precedence for these cases. Honestly, I think the closest SSM supporters really have to a legally solid case is by showing that SSM support is part of deeply held religious beliefs.

Churches have a special status guarded by the first amendment. Other “preference-driven” things do not have that protection, and can’t rely on it either. See my posts on the “privatized marriage” thread if you want to see my viewpoints further, but I see no legal way SSM can be fought for.

Effay5 on February 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM

If a sperm donor is used, be it by a single woman or married couple (heterosexual of homosexual), that sperm donor has generally not enjoyed parental rights. This was the case here. By your standard every sperm donor has had their rights unlawfully and unconstitutionally terminated. What the California law did was grant new rights to a donor that wanted them. I don’t think that’s a wholly bad thing if all involved parties are fine with the arrangement. Would you have preferred this child be placed in foster care than be cared for by their biological father who obviously had an interest.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:02 PM

NO, it was not. You are confusing two different cases. The sperm donor case was in KANSAS. He slept with the lesbian, and wanted to be an active part of the child’s life.

In re M.C.: A Mess From Beginning to End

M.C. was born into a complicated situation. Her mother, Melissa, was involved, prior to her pregnancy, with another woman, Irene. The two women had lived together, although not happily, in a relationship marked by mutual physical abuse, mental illness, and drug use. Nonetheless, they became registered domestic partners in 2008 (which, at the time was the only status available for same-sex couples in California). They separated within a few months, and Melissa shortly thereafter became involved with a man, Jesus, with whom she conceived a child.

From the outset, Jesus knew he was the child’s biological father, and he was supportive of Melissa during the pregnancy. For a few months of the pregnancy, Melissa lived with him and his family and accepted his support. While still pregnant, she filed the paperwork to dissolve her domestic partnership with Irene—as a domestic partnership status could then be unilaterally dissolved. Melissa also sought and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on Irene’s alleged physical abuse of her.
- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/10/15/california-allows-children-two-legal-parents#sthash.Bbf4o1HI.dpuf

And a man cannot “donate” sperm privately for the whole purpose of what I am telling you. YOU CANNOT TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS PRIVATELY. Sperm donation must go through a licensed clinic.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

So if we carefully and diligently regulate it then you’re cool with polygamy?

Bishop on February 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Nope. There was a time when my natural libertarian tendencies lead me to think it should be acceptable and part of me still thinks the people dumb enough to voluntarily enter in to such a relationship all deserve each other but as I’ve looked at the issue more closely lately it’s hardened my opinion against the practice. I actually give the anti-marriage people here and that I’ve debated with in other threads credit for that. It’s not anything any argument that any of them said; I find most of their argument to be either immoral, illogical, irrational, factually incorrect or unconstitutional (or various combinations of those) but in reading and constructing my own arguments primarily against the dreaded slippery slope I learned a lot more about polygamy than I knew before, got to see what a societal disaster it was, the negative consequences that stem directly from it and concluded that the practice should stay on the ash heap of history where it belongs.

But the issues that surround number of participants in a marriage and the gender of participants in a marriage are very different. We have ample reason to maintain the status quo on the former but not to maintain regulation on the latter.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM

I wouldn’t “call” them anything. But I’d happily have a conversation with them in order to understand why they don’t. Many gay leftists reject gay marriage.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:56 PM

You know what’s funny. I almost never argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of “equality” or even of “civil rights.” Frankly, i don’t really argue for same-sex marriage. I take great schadenfreude in seeing anti-gay people’s head’s explode, but I am actually ambivalent about gay marriage. I am part of the gay community who finds marriage itself an oppressive institution, one that is bound up in some really ugly histories.

libfreeordie on February 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

At least you’re more honest than most one the SSM side.

The gay community generally didn’t seem to really care about marriage until recently. Your sentiment seemed much more common (marriage is a bourgeois oppressive institution that doesn’t have any purpose for gay people).

gwelf on February 14, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Take religion for example. Religion is purely a choice, and it’s choice anyone can change at will. It’s a pure preference, plain and simple. Yet despite the fact it’s a choice it’s given equal protection status equivalent of race and national origin. It appears that in this country even things that are personal choices can be entitled to the highest level of scrutiny when it comes to equal protection claims. So even if we accept the premise that sexual orientation is a choice that does not disqualify it from equal protection status. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:45 PM

You might want to run that one by the Little Sisters of the Poor…

affenhauer on February 14, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Nope. There was a time when my natural libertarian tendencies…

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Ok…What in the Hell does that even mean???

BigWyo on February 14, 2014 at 4:30 PM

BigWyo on February 14, 2014 at 4:30 PM

In his case, I believe it means he likes to hit the bong early in the day and eat Cheetos, while watching Modern Family re-runs on a beanbag chair.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Virginia same-sex marriage
6h
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe on same-sex marriage ruling: ‘I applaud the federal district court’s decision to ensure all Virginians are treated equally under the law, no matter what their backgrounds are or whom they love’ – statement via @NBCNews

canopfor on February 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

If the situation in California were exactly the same except Irene was a man then how would the outcome be different? A man in Irene’s situation who was not the biological parent of the child could still be a presumed parent under California law by virtue of the marriage to the biological mother at the time of the birth of the child. The fact the mother is apparently bisexual is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM

So the standard you want is that you have to be born with it for something to be protected? Okay, let’s examine if this is the way the law is applied. It’s true that we’re all born with our race, it’s immutable and it’s outwardly obvious so that’s why we not only protect it, we protect it with strict scrutiny when it comes to equal protection claims. Let’s imagine for a minute that the premise is true that sexual orientation is a purely a matter of choice and not anything immutable. It’s a preference (hypothetically) and should be treated as such. Are preferences not entitled to any protection at all? Why yes, yes they are. Take religion for example. Religion is purely a choice, and it’s choice anyone can change at will. It’s a pure preference, plain and simple. Yet despite the fact it’s a choice it’s given equal protection status equivalent of race and national origin. It appears that in this country even things that are personal choices can be entitled to the highest level of scrutiny when it comes to equal protection claims. So even if we accept the premise that sexual orientation is a choice that does not disqualify it from equal protection status. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 3:45 PM

My personal religion with the sole tenant of “not paying taxes” isn’t getting me traction with the IRS, so I suppose some religions (i.e. “preferences”) are more equal than others, huh?

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM

But the issues that surround number of participants in a marriage and the gender of participants in a marriage are very different. We have ample reason to maintain the status quo on the former but not to maintain regulation on the latter.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:23 PM
</blockquote

There is no difference. And the status quo was man/woman marriage. That horse has left the gate under the equal protection banner.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 4:37 PM

In his case, I believe it means he likes to hit the bong early in the day and eat Cheetos, while watching Modern Family re-runs on a beanbag chair.

kingsjester on February 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Rockin’ out the “FUN-Ployment” so to speak??

AH….

BigWyo on February 14, 2014 at 4:38 PM

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Besides, NO ONE is saying all three of these people are married at the same time. Parental rights and who will be granted access to the legal status of marriage are NOT the same thing!

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:38 PM

I thought it was 69?

See what I did there?

Nutstuyu on February 14, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Either number shows more scientific studies I could find on the ills of homosexuality than polygamy.

sentinelrules on February 14, 2014 at 4:39 PM

And a man cannot “donate” sperm privately for the whole purpose of what I am telling you. YOU CANNOT TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS PRIVATELY. Sperm donation must go through a licensed clinic. – melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Is guess this is Federal Law? There have been far too many cases where unethical doctors have willing sperm donors to females with infertility problems.

SC.Charlie on February 14, 2014 at 4:40 PM

If the situation in California were exactly the same except Irene was a man then how would the outcome be different? A man in Irene’s situation who was not the biological parent of the child could still be a presumed parent under California law by virtue of the marriage to the biological mother at the time of the birth of the child. The fact the mother is apparently bisexual is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

alchemsist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:36

The “presumed” get it presumed parent law was passed because the state had a reasonable presumption that the HUSBAND WAS THE BIO DAD OF THE WIFE’S CHILD. And in most states include California, there are ways of challenging and changing the presumption.

The state of California had no reasonable basis to conclude and presume that a woman is the bio father of another woman’s child. And when they did so, they KNOWINGLY terminated a bio parent’s right to his child without due process. You know those “equal protection” and “rights” you gay marriage supporters scream about.

melle1228 on February 14, 2014 at 4:41 PM

My personal religion with the sole tenant of “not paying taxes” isn’t getting me traction with the IRS, so I suppose some religions (i.e. “preferences”) are more equal than others, huh?

Saltyron on February 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Ask them and see how it goes. I don’t think they take freedom of religion to mean you have free reign to break the law so long as you claim you’re doing it on religious grounds but it never hurts to ask, I guess.

alchemist19 on February 14, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9